A group of House Democrats are surfacing the health care public option as a way of reducing the deficit, revisiting an approach suggested by President Obama's debt commission in 2010.

According to a Tuesday statement from Rep. Jan Schakowsky's (D-Ill.) office, Schakowsky, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), and 43 other House members have introduced the Public Option Deficit Reduction Act, which would "would offer the choice of a publicly-run health insurance plan, an option that would save more than $100 billion over 10 years."

"As Congress looks to reduce the deficit, it is important to remember the one policy that could save billions of dollars is the public option. I hope that my colleagues will take a fresh look at this in the months ahead,” Waxman said in the statement.

not that this has a chance in hell of ever passing a congress dominated by the insurance lobby, but it's nice to think about

When Toyota decided to build a new assembly plant in Canada's Ontario, despite being wooed by many American states, they opted for a location with a publicly funded health care scheme as well as high-quality public education. The idea that big government can actually help attract global business is a commonplace in Canada, but is anathema to most American decision makers. If more businesses like Toyota choose to locate their plants in welfare states where labor quality is high and costs to the employer are low, US taxpayers will have to assume more of the costs of employees with few or no benefits. Perhaps international competition is revealing that making health care a universal good is not only beneficial for society, but an increasingly attractive incentive for companies. – YaleGlobal

What made Toyota so sensitive to labor quality issues? Maybe we should discount remarks from the president of the Toronto-based Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, who claimed that the educational level in the Southern United States was so low that trainers for Japanese plants in Alabama had to use "pictorials" to teach some illiterate workers how to use high-tech equipment.

My boss keeps talking about at some point pushing us onto govt healthcare. I told him that would be fine but I would expect a 25% salary increase as our loaded benefits costs him around 33% I would let him net 8%.

My boss keeps talking about at some point pushing us onto govt healthcare. I told him that would be fine but I would expect a 25% salary increase as our loaded benefits costs him around 33% I would let him net 8%.

Guarenteed the illiterate he was speaking of were the products of our glorious public school system.

There's some bitter irony here for Alabama's governor. Just two years ago voters overwhelmingly rejected his plea for an increase in the state's rock-bottom taxes on the affluent, so that he could afford to improve the state's low-quality education system. Opponents of the tax hike convinced voters that it would cost the state jobs.

what gets lost in this type of debate when people say no to taxes is they just assume its yay rich or a certain segment. not always the case.
many times, people vote no because they do not TRUST the goofballs in office, will spend wisely.

what gets lost in this type of debate when people say no to taxes is they just assume its yay rich or a certain segment. not always the case.many times, people vote no because they do not TRUST the goofballs in office, will spend wisely.

for some reason, many don't wrap their head around that.

yeah i have a p hard time wrapping my head around dumb opinions

seriously though if i lived in alabama i'd be weary of higher revenues for the government, given the state's history of overt discrimination. that being said, i bet that's not why they opposed higher taxes on the rich. in fact, i bet it was something really fuging stupid like "Opponents of the tax hike convinced voters that it would cost the state jobs" ( btw this is from the article)

tbqh i'd be down to let alabama secede if we could have a window of time to help refugees get the fug out of there before the state becomes a wasteland*

My boss keeps talking about at some point pushing us onto govt healthcare. I told him that would be fine but I would expect a 25% salary increase as our loaded benefits costs him around 33% I would let him net 8%.

I seem to recall you posting about how companies would not kill their insurance options, pay the fee, and force employees onto the gov't plan.....actually using your company as an example of how they would use their benefits as a recruiting tool.

Now, your company is talking about this.

This is exactly what MANY companies will do and exactly what the Obama Administration intended.

They could not get a single provider plan passes because that is not what the majority of people wanted. So, he backdoored this plan before anyone knew what was in it. Only to design one that incented employers to drop coverage.....thus getting what he wanted.

And, if you think your boss is going to give you a huge raise....you are kidding yourself.